So I had a day break from writing the first part of this blog and it gave me some things to think about. Obviously, there is so much more that goes into making a game besides some imagination and knowledge of the game industry. Most, not all, but most great games need a compelling story to drive their single player mode, which in some products is the only aspect of the game. Moving forward on the same concepts, a great game also needs, yes, an amazingly well developed multiplayer. Therefore, those are two of the points I'm going to look at in this part of the article because they are exceptionally important. The single player modes in most games are going through an evolution. With the introduction of games like Call of Duty 4 players can play through an experience that is on the same entertainment scale to the people watching as a movie. When CoD4 first came out I was playing it and about 5 people were watching me and although none of them were anywhere near being avid gamers, they didn't want me to stop playing because it was so fun just to watch. Any single player mode that can do that is probably a winner because if the people watching it are having fun, think about the person playing. But how exactly did they go about making such an experience? It's more or less all about timing various actions to occur as soon as the player does something. Of course, games have been like this since the dawn of gaming days, but CoD4 went and added something a little extra. The helicopter crash on the mission where you escape from the attempted assassination with the .50 cal is just one example that gets the player and everyone watching much more on edge. Other examples are the slowing down of time when one goes semiconscious or the help received from squad members at certain points in the game. The adding in of these variables keep the game interesting, along with the time tested usage of smart AI's, the fairly recent addition of giving the player more than one option when confronted with a firefight. I'm playing through the game for a third time right now and I have yet to do the same thing twice. Don't let my praise of CoD4 fool you though. Halo 3 did fairly well at delivering a good single player mode, though it didn't incorporate as many "in-play cinematic experiences" as CoD4. Other great ones include Bioshock, GTA 4, and various others. However, keep in mind that these are all action games. One can't exactly deliver the same kind of excitement through an RPG and that's where a good story writer comes in. All the above games had good, even great storylines. But they also had the added advantage of delivering more special effects during game play and cinematics. RPG's don't use anywhere near the same kind of engine as an action or shooter game. They rely solely on the story, environments, enemies, and the "growth" idea. The growth idea being that the main character or characters start the game at a low level and through battles and various other points in the game increase their power and level. This gives the player a sense of relation to the character in the game. The story in any RPG is what pushes the game forward because RPG's are practically like reading books. They immerse their players in a rich, lush, believable environment and push them in the right direction along whatever path they need to go through, whether it is a sole, primary path like in most Final Fantasy games, Golden Sun, etc. or through a path chosen by the player like the Elder Scrolls series (Morrowind/Oblivion among others) or Fable. I won't get into MMO's right now because their main focus isn't on stories but rather interaction between players. Also, enemies in games have to be worth giving a second thought about. I went through this in the last section with the Miyamoto incident. In a realistic first person shooter, the player shouldn't be fighting massive dogmen. However, in a futuristic or sci-fi game, anything's believable right? Through the combined aspects of beautiful environments, a compelling story, believable enemies, and varying inserts of action during actual game play a single player mode can be solely what an individual buys a game for. Multiplayer has become more of what is bringing gaming into the mainstream, however. With the advent of MLG and World Cybergames and whatnot, competition gaming is giving opportunities to exceptional players. However, not any game can become a great, tournament grade multiplayer game. Fighting games need fairness, shooters need great maps, and racers need technicality. The Smash Bros. Series has become a classic in the fighter genre because every button combination is the same, with different moves for each player that are all fairly equal. Other great fighters include the Street Fighter series, Tekken, and Soul Calibur, though Smash Bros. is by far the most widely played. This is partially because of the nostalgic value Smash has, but everything about the game reeks great multiplayer. Fairness, great environments (again), and ease of play yet difficulty to master all make it great for casual play and tourny play. Racing games are probably the least popular of the mainstream multiplayer genre, but games like the Project Gotham series have added an all around racer in which players have to react to the technicalities of the car and track, utilizing whether or not the car is FWD, RWD, or AWD, how well the car will drift and turn, and whether the track has more straights or curves. The tracks themselves are also something to take into consideration. Part of being a multiplayer design lead is designing the maps, tracks, levels, etc. and, in my opinion, this is the best part of the multiplayer development. In a racer, the tracks have to be fair, just as the fighters do in a fighting game. They can't be primarily curvy, nor primarily straight, they have to be equal. This doesn't mean that the track can't have 40 seconds of curves and 20 seconds of straight. This makes the player learn and adapt to the track's challenges, making a race more interesting. But the track can't be a Formula D drift track or a NHRA drag track, either, unless that is the competition the players are involved in. Otherwise, it won't make for a very competitive match. In first person shooters, most play involves teams, however, that doesn't mean a designer can ignore one on one matches, either. First person shooters need to have the options of what guns players start with, but that isn't as important as the way the level is designed. If the FPS is going to be one where players can pick up dropped guns from dead enemies or from the map, the map should always include some form of advantage in the form of a weapon that each team or player can reach equally off the spawn. Likewise, every map should be equal. Not necessarily symmetrical, but their should be an area that teams can reach equally and set up to defend it that gives them a strong advantage over the other team. Cover should be aplenty but so should the areas of open spaces. Looking at every great FPS game that has been made, they all have these traits common in their multiplayer, all the way back to Goldeneye. So in essence, multiplayer is all about equality, allowing players and teams to win by strategy and skill, not by game shortcomings. And actually, 6312's next project after Kingdom Come will probably be a FPS, or that's the plan now anyways and multiplayer is going to be one of the main focuses. So, that's my take on single player and multiplayer for the time being, and hopefully tomorrow or during the next few days I'll have some time to add a third part to this article. Thanks for reading guys and happy gaming! - Tyler P.